9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Consensus statement for perioperative care in total hip replacement and total knee replacement surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS ®) Society recommendations

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and purpose — There is a large volume of heterogeneous studies across all Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS ®) components within total hip and total knee replacement surgery. This multidisciplinary consensus review summarizes the literature, and proposes recommendations for the perioperative care of patients undergoing total hip replacement and total knee replacement with an ERAS program.

          Methods — Studies were selected with particular attention being paid to meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohort studies that evaluated the efficacy of individual items of the perioperative treatment pathway to expedite the achievement of discharge criteria. A consensus recommendation was reached by the group after critical appraisal of the literature.

          Results — This consensus statement includes 17 topic areas. Best practice includes optimizing preoperative patient education, anesthetic technique, and transfusion strategy, in combination with an opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic approach and early mobilization. There is insufficient evidence to recommend that one surgical technique (type of approach, use of a minimally invasive technique, prosthesis choice, or use of computer-assisted surgery) over another will independently effect achievement of discharge criteria.

          Interpretation — Based on the evidence available for each element of perioperative care pathways, the ERAS ® Society presents a comprehensive consensus review, for the perioperative care of patients undergoing total hip replacement and total knee replacement surgery within an ERAS ® program. This unified protocol should now be further evaluated in order to refine the protocol and verify the strength of these recommendations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references134

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prevention of VTE in orthopedic surgery patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

          VTE is a serious, but decreasing complication following major orthopedic surgery. This guideline focuses on optimal prophylaxis to reduce postoperative pulmonary embolism and DVT. The methods of this guideline follow those described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement. In patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, we recommend the use of one of the following rather than no antithrombotic prophylaxis: low-molecular-weight heparin; fondaparinux; dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban (total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty but not hip fracture surgery); low-dose unfractionated heparin; adjusted-dose vitamin K antagonist; aspirin (all Grade 1B); or an intermittent pneumatic compression device (IPCD) (Grade 1C) for a minimum of 10 to 14 days. We suggest the use of low-molecular-weight heparin in preference to the other agents we have recommended as alternatives (Grade 2C/2B), and in patients receiving pharmacologic prophylaxis, we suggest adding an IPCD during the hospital stay (Grade 2C). We suggest extending thromboprophylaxis for up to 35 days (Grade 2B). In patients at increased bleeding risk, we suggest an IPCD or no prophylaxis (Grade 2C). In patients who decline injections, we recommend using apixaban or dabigatran (all Grade 1B). We suggest against using inferior vena cava filter placement for primary prevention in patients with contraindications to both pharmacologic and mechanical thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2C). We recommend against Doppler (or duplex) ultrasonography screening before hospital discharge (Grade 1B). For patients with isolated lower-extremity injuries requiring leg immobilization, we suggest no thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2B). For patients undergoing knee arthroscopy without a history of VTE, we suggest no thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2B). Optimal strategies for thromboprophylaxis after major orthopedic surgery include pharmacologic and mechanical approaches.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: conclusions from cross-validations between two centers.

            Recently, two centers have independently developed a risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study investigated (1) whether risk scores are valid across centers and (2) whether risk scores based on logistic regression coefficients can be simplified without loss of discriminating power. Adult patients from two centers (Oulu, Finland: n = 520, and Wuerzburg, Germany: n = 2202) received inhalational anesthesia (without antiemetic prophylaxis) for various types of surgery. PONV was defined as nausea or vomiting within 24 h of surgery. Risk scores to estimate the probability of PONV were obtained by fitting logistic regression models. Simplified risk scores were constructed based on the number of risk factors that were found significant in the logistic regression analyses. Original and simplified scores were cross-validated. A combined data set was created to estimate a potential center effect and to construct a final risk score. The discriminating power of each score was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Risk scores derived from one center were able to predict PONV from the other center (area under the curve = 0.65-0.75). Simplification did not essentially weaken the discriminating power (area under the curve = 0.63-0.73). No center effect could be detected in a combined data set (odds ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = 0.71-1.59). The final score consisted of four predictors: female gender, history of motion sickness (MS) or PONV, nonsmoking, and the use of postoperative opioids. If none, one, two, three, or four of these risk factors were present, the incidences of PONV were 10%, 21%, 39%, 61% and 79%. The risk scores derived from one center proved valid in the other and could be simplified without significant loss of discriminating power. Therefore, it appears that this risk score has broad applicability in predicting PONV in adult patients undergoing inhalational anesthesia for various types of surgery. For patients with at least two out of these four identified predictors a prophylactic antiemetic strategy should be considered.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

              Untreated, one third of patients who undergo surgery will have postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although many trials have been conducted, the relative benefits of prophylactic antiemetic interventions given alone or in combination remain unknown. We enrolled 5199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting in a randomized, controlled trial of factorial design that was powered to evaluate interactions among as many as three antiemetic interventions. Of these patients, 4123 were randomly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of six prophylactic interventions: 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron; 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone; 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol; propofol or a volatile anesthetic; nitrogen or nitrous oxide; and remifentanil or fentanyl. The remaining patients were randomly assigned with respect to the first four interventions. The primary outcome was nausea and vomiting within 24 hours after surgery, which was evaluated blindly. Ondansetron, dexamethasone, and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26 percent. Propofol reduced the risk by 19 percent, and nitrogen by 12 percent; the risk reduction with both of these agents (i.e., total intravenous anesthesia) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics. All the interventions acted independently of one another and independently of the patients' baseline risk. Consequently, the relative risks associated with the combined interventions could be estimated by multiplying the relative risks associated with each intervention. Absolute risk reduction, though, was a critical function of patients' baseline risk. Because antiemetic interventions are similarly effective and act independently, the safest or least expensive should be used first. Prophylaxis is rarely warranted in low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients may benefit from a single intervention, and multiple interventions should be reserved for high-risk patients. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Acta Orthop
                Acta Orthop
                IORT
                iort20
                Acta Orthopaedica
                Taylor & Francis
                1745-3674
                1745-3682
                2020
                30 October 2019
                : 91
                : 1
                : 3-19
                Affiliations
                [a ]Orthopaedic Research Institute, Bournemouth Univesity , Bournemouth, UK;
                [b ]The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Bournemouth, UK;
                [c ]Golden Jubilee National Hospital , Glasgow, Scotland;
                [d ]Scottish Government , Glasgow, Scotland;
                [e ]Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University , Glasgow, Scotland;
                [f ]Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust , Poole, UK;
                [g ]Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundational Trust , Northumbria, UK;
                [h ]Health Sciences, University of York , York, UK;
                [i ]Nottingham University Hospital , Nottingham, UK;
                [j ]Nottingham University , Nottingham, UK;
                [k ]University of Western Australia , Perth, Australia;
                [l ]Örebro University , Örebro, Sweden
                Author notes
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7860-2990
                Article
                1683790
                10.1080/17453674.2019.1683790
                7006728
                31663402
                a3c5f917-f15e-47cb-967e-6d5c70d20b82
                © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 3, Pages: 17, Words: 14433
                Funding
                This study received no funding and was completed independently.
                Categories
                Consensus hip, knee. ERAS

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article